Appellate briefing, strategic guidance, and oral argument

• Argued an interlocutory appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of a national restaurant chain in a putative class action arising from alleged violation of California mislabeling law. Only 15 days after argument, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment below in favor of Emily’s client, with a narrow remand on one issue of damages.
• Briefed, argued, and won before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court a case pertaining to the Massachusetts Expanded Gaming Act, G. L. c. 23K, on questions certified by the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
• Provided strategic guidance in connection with successful appeal in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, affirming dismissal of a whistleblower’s state and federal False Claims Act claims.
• Successfully obtained Direct Appellate Review and won before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court a case of statutory first impression and constitutional dimensional concerning the interpretation of G. L. c. 123, § 12, which raised the question how long a patient in psychiatric distress may be cared for in an emergency department while waiting for a bed in an appropriate in-patient psychiatric facility.
• Provided strategic guidance, research and drafting for the Respondent’s Brief on behalf of a nationwide retailer before a California Court of Appeal, in a wrongful termination claim filed by a former employee. After submission of the Brief, the appeal was dismissed at the appellant’s request.

Appellate amicus briefs

• Amicus brief to the United States Supreme Court on behalf of legal scholars in the cases of Moyle v. United States (No. 23-726) and Idaho v. United States (No. 23-737), which concern whether the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) preempts a state abortion law.
• Amicus brief to the United States Supreme Court in support of Respondents in the cases of Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (No. 20-1199) and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina (No. 21-707), in which Petitioners challenged the consideration of race in college admissions.  
• Amicus brief to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on behalf of the National Homelessness Law Center, in a case concerning the rights of people experiencing homelessness.
• Amicus brief to the United States Supreme Court in the case of County of Maui, Hawaii vs. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, (18-260), concerning whether the federal Clean Water Act regulates discharges of pollutants into groundwater that then flows into navigable waters.
  

Complex Commercial Litigation

• Secured a motion to dismiss with prejudice on behalf of DBV Technologies in a class action filed in the US District court for New Jersey, alleging the company made false or misleading statements and failed to disclose sufficient manufacturing data on their key therapeutic treatment.
• Represented Advance Auto Parts in a securities class action in the District of Delaware and successfully obtained dismissal of a related derivative action against its board of directors and certain senior executives.
• Successfully represented bondholders who owned a majority stake of bonds used to finance a continuing care retirement community, in a dispute with the debtor and Unsecured Creditors Committee connected to the property and its bankruptcy filing.
• Successfully opposed a motion for preliminary injunction in a case alleging trade secret misappropriation under federal and state law.
• Achieved a decisive arbitration victory on behalf of a supplier in a complex contractual dispute with an automobile manufacturer, resulting in an award of over $10M, plus attorneys’ fees and expert costs.
• Represented pharmaceutical company defendant in the Nexium antitrust MDL litigation, the first alleged “pay-for-delay” case to go to trial since the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in FTC v. Actavis, resulting in a favorable settlement for Emily’s client.
• Represented Taiwanese creditor in complex civil RICO case in California federal court involving claims against 34 foreign and domestic defendants. The firm achieved a successful settlement of the case at the commencement of trial.